TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w is part of West Pakistan. The petitioner along with his brothers migrated to India leaving behind certain plots of land. According to the petitioner, he had a certain share in the Immovable property left by him and his brothers in urban area, that is, property within municipal limits. The petitioner as well as his brothers filed separate claims in respect of the said property before the claims officer and the claims officer by his order dated 13th January 1953 held that the property was in urban area. It was within the municipal limits of Nawabshah. The value of the property was ₹ 18,840 and the share of the petitioner in this property was to the extent of its one-fourth. On these findings the operative order made by him was : I accordingly verify and value the claimant's one-fourth share at ₹ 4,710. The petitioner was not satisfied with the decision of the Claims Commissioner. Against the said order he preferred a revision before the Chief Claims Commissioner. The Chief Claims Commissioner, however, by his order dated 28th April 1953 dismissed the revision application and affirmed the aforesaid order of the Claims Commissioner. The order made by the Chief Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the petitioner before us is Dermal. His share has been held to be 1 standard acre and 9 1/2 annals. The value of this comes to nearly ₹ 500. As a result of the previous orders made by the Claims Comer. and confirmed by the Chief Claims Commissioner. the value of the verified claim was ₹ 4710. That order has been reviewed by the third respondent by his aforesaid order of 31st October 1962 reducing the value of the petitioners' verified claim from ₹ 4, 710 to ₹ 500. It is this order that the petitioner has challenged by this petition which has been filed before us on 12th February 1964. 3. The contention of the petitioner, who argued his case before us, is that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner where under he had confirmed the value of the petitioner's claim at ₹ 4,710. The argument is that there is no power conferred by any statute on the third respondent to review the order of the Chief Claims Commissioner, the highest authority under Act XLIV of 1950. Before we deal with these contentions on merits it would be convenient to dispose of three preliminary objections rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not an authority located in the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction. This Court therefore has no jurisdiction to quash that order. It is indeed true that the office of the third respondent is located in New Delhi and in that sense the third respondent is not a person residing within the territory in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction. Article 226 has however been recently amended and clause (1-A) has been added to Art. 226 after clause (1). It reads in the following terms: The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The question that arises is whether the cause of action for the exercise of the power invoked by the petitioner arose wholly or in part within the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction. The petitioner, as it appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 4,710 is in great jeopardy. If he had already obtained a set off to that extent and a property had been allotted to him, he would be required in consequence of the order made to refund the excess over ₹ 500. In this aspect of the case also the petitioner has been placed in jeopardy. It therefore cannot be said that the petition is premature. All these three preliminary objections therefore fail and are overruled. 7. Turning to the merits of the case, the question which we have to consider is whether the third respondent had any power to review the order dated 28th April 1953 made by the Chief Claims Commissioner confirming the value of the petitioner's verified claim at ₹ 4,710 We have already stated that the Chief Claims Commissioner was the highest authority under Act XLIV of 1950. It is a matter of history that after independence a large number of Indians who were residing in territories which now form part of West Pakistan had to return to India leaving behind their properties. Having regard to the circumstances, Parliament of India with a view to provide for registration and verification of claims of these displaced persons in respect of their I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered under the principal Act and pending on the appointed day; or (ii) any claim submitted to any authority under the principal Act by any person migrating to India from any tribal area and pending on the appointed day. The combined effect of these provisions is that under the Ordinance the claims which were pending on the date of expiry of Act XLIV of 1950 were revived and the officers appointed under the Ordinance were empowered to deal with those claims. Section 3 deals with appointment of officers for purposes of working of the administration of this Ordinance, and sub-section (10) of S. 3 empowered the Central Government by notification to appoint a Chief Settlement Commissioner, a Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner, a Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner and as many Settlement Commissioners, Additional Settlement Commissioners and Settlement Officers as may be necessary for the purposes of performance of functions assigned to them by or under this Ordinance and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Ordinance. Sub-section (2) provides that all the aforesaid officers have to perform their d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of 31st October 1962. In para 10 of the return the respondents have averred: I say that the order dated 31st October 1962 has been passed by the third respondent under Section 5(1) (b) of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 and it is a final order and no further revision or review is maintainable. Now Section 5(1) relates to the special power of revision in respect of the cases decided under Act XLIV of 1950. The special power has been conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner Clause (a) relates to the exercise of the power on an application having been made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Clause (b) relates to the exercise of the power by the Chief Settlement Commissioner suo motu and it provides: Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, on his own motion, but subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, revise any verified claim and make such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit Verified claim has been defined in clause (f) of Section 2 as any claim registered under the principal Act in respect of which a final order has been passed under that Act. Now it ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason It has not been disputed before us that these rules have continued to remain in force even under the Supplementary Act by reason of Section 24 read together with Section 30 of the General Clauses Act. It is argued by Mr. Vaidya that these provisions were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges at the time the aforesaid judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Patel. The record from Pakistan was received in the year 1961. From the record it was discovered that the property of the petitioner had not been regarded to be one within the urban area, and it is for this reason that the third respondent had reviewed the order of the Chief Claims commissioner in exercise of powers conferred on him under the rules. It is not possible for us to accept the arguments of Mr. Vaidya. The power to review a prior order is principally the power vested in an officer to review an order previously made by himself and not by anybody else. It is to be noticed that the powers to review an order conferred on these officers under the said rule are only co-extensive with the powers vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
